Random assignment without tears: How to stop worrying and love the Cambridge randomizer

Journal of Experimental Criminology

Volumn 8, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 193-208

  Ariel, Barak ^a   Vila, Jordi ^a   Sherman, Lawrence ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Allocation integrity; Cost of research; Experiments; Random allocation; Random assignment

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860683560     PISSN: 15733750     EISSN: 15728315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11292-012-9141-4     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Ariel, B., & Farrington, D. (2010). Randomised Block Designs. Handbook of Quantitative Criminology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Barnow, B. S., Cain, G. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1980). Issues in the Analysis of Selectivity Bias. Institute for Research on Poverty Discussion Papers. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
3. Boruch, R. F. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
4. Braucht, G. N., & Reichardt, C. S. (1993). A computerized approach to trickle-process, random assignment. Evaluation Review, 17(1), 79-90.
5. Chalmers, I. (2001). Comparing like with like: some historical milestones in the evolution of methods to create unbiased comparison groups in therapeutic experiments. International Journal of Epidemiology, 30(5), 1156-1164.
6. Claxton, K., Sculpher, M., & Drummond, M. (2002). A rational framework for decision making by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). The Lancet, 360(9334), 711-715.
7. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi experimentation: Design and analysis - issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
8. Day, S. J., & Altman, D. G. (2000). Blinding in clinical trials and other studies. British Medical Journal, 321, 504-511.
9. Gartin, P. R. (1991). A replication and analytic extension of the minneapolis domestic violence experiment. Draft of PhD Dissertation, Institute of Criminal Justice and Criminology, College Park: University of Maryland.
10. Miller, D. C., & Salkind, N. J. (2002). Handbook of research design and social measurement. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
11. Rezmovic, E. L., Cook, T., & Douglas Dobson, L. (1981). Beyond random assignment factors affecting evaluation integrity. Evaluation Review, 5(1), 51-67.
12. Schulz, K. F., & Grimes, D. A. (2002). Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. The Lancet, 359(9306), 614-618.
13. Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Empirical evidence of bias: dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of American Medical Association, 273, 408-412.
14. Sherman, L. W. (2010). Introduction to experimental criminology. In: A. Piquero & D. Weisburd (Eds) Handbook of Quantitative Criminology (pp. 399-436). New York: Springer.
15. Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261-272.
16. Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., & Woods, D. J. (2000). Recidivism patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). NCJRS.